...
首页> 外文期刊>Drugs in R&D >Comparison of Two Forms of Loperamide–Simeticone and a Probiotic Yeast (Saccharomyces boulardii) in the Treatment of Acute Diarrhoea in Adults: A Randomised Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial
【24h】

Comparison of Two Forms of Loperamide–Simeticone and a Probiotic Yeast (Saccharomyces boulardii) in the Treatment of Acute Diarrhoea in Adults: A Randomised Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial

机译:比较两种形式的洛哌丁胺-西替米松和益生菌酵母(Saccharomyces boulardii)治疗成人急性腹泻:一项非劣效性随机临床试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Acute diarrhoea is a frequent health problem in both travellers and residents that has a social and economic impact. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of two loperamide–simeticone formulations and a Saccharomyces boulardii capsule as symptomatic treatment. Methods This was a prospective, randomised, single (investigator)-blind, three-arm, parallel group, non-inferiority clinical trial in adult subjects with acute diarrhoea at clinics in Mexico and India, with allocation to a loperamide–simeticone 2/125?mg caplet or chewable tablet (maximum eight in 48?h) or S . boulardii (250?mg twice daily for 5?days). Outcome Measures The primary outcome measure was the number of unformed stools between 0 and 24?h following the initial dose of study medication (NUS 0–24). The secondary outcome measures were time to last unformed stool (TLUS), time to complete relief of diarrhoea (TCRD), time to complete relief of abdominal discomfort (TCRAD) and the subject’s evaluation of treatment effectiveness. Follow-up endpoints at 7?days were feeling of complete wellness; stool passed since final study visit; and continued or recurrent diarrhoea. Subjects In this study, 415 subjects were randomised to either a loperamide–simeticone caplet ( n =?139), loperamide–simeticone chewable tablet ( n =?139) or S . boulardii capsule ( n =?137) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Results With regards to mean NUS 0–24, the loperamide–simeticone caplet was non-inferior to loperamide–simeticone tablets (3.4 vs. 3.3; one-sided 97.5?% confidence interval ≤0.5), with both significantly lower than S . boulardii (4.3; p Conclusions The loperamide–simeticone caplet was non-inferior to the original loperamide–simeticone chewable tablet formulation; both formulations can be expected to demonstrate similar clinical efficacy in the relief of symptoms of acute diarrhoea. Both loperamide–simeticone formulations were superior to the S . boulardii capsule in the primary and secondary endpoints. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00807326.
机译:背景技术急性腹泻在旅行者和居民中都是常见的健康问题,具有社会和经济影响。这项研究比较了两种洛哌丁胺-西甲酮制剂和博莱氏酵母胶囊作为对症治疗的功效和耐受性。方法这是一项前瞻性,随机,单盲(研究者),三臂,平行组的非劣效性临床试验,用于在墨西哥和印度的急性腹泻成人受试者中,分配给洛哌丁胺-西甲酮2/125毫克锭片或咀嚼片(48小时内最多八片)或S。 boulardii(250毫克,每天两次,持续5天内)。结果测量主要结果测量是研究药物初始剂量(NUS 0-24)后0到24小时之间未形成粪便的数量。次要结局指标包括:大便持续时间(TLUS),腹泻完全缓解(TCRD),腹部不适完全缓解(TCRAD)和受试者对治疗效果的评估。 7天的随访终点感觉完全健康。自最后一次研究访问以来粪便通过了;以及持续或反复出现的腹泻。受试者在这项研究中,将415名受试者随机分配至洛哌丁胺-西甲酮片(n =?139),洛哌丁胺-西甲酮咀嚼片(n =?139)或S。 Boulardii胶囊(n = 137),并包括在意向治疗分析中。结果关于平均NUS 0-24,洛哌丁胺-西甲酮片的效果不逊于洛哌丁胺-西甲酮片(3.4比3.3;单边97.5%置信区间≤0.5),两者均显着低于S。 boulardii(4.3; p结论)洛哌丁胺-西甲酮片状片剂不逊于最初的洛哌丁胺-西甲酮可咀嚼片制剂;两种制剂在减轻急性腹泻症状方面均有望表现出相似的临床疗效。在主要和次要终点指标上均优于boulardii胶囊临床试验注册ClinicalTrials.gov标识符NCT00807326。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号